Full Frame vs. APS-C Sensor - Do you really need to upgrade to Full Frame?

[petrochemist]

I didn't need to go FF but I found the options of the A7ii added nicely to my existing systems.
It's currently my most used camera but I sometimes take a MFT or APSC model along as well for telephoto use.

 

[Original katomi]

This is a question I ask myself do I really need ff. I get the urge to go ff then I look at the spec and at what I do. And the answer is still the same, for what I would gain the move to ff is not worth it. For me. Better to upgrade some glass instead if I had that sort of money. Maybe a ff will come up stupidly cheap, I dream of course

 

[Derrel]

I shot crop frame from 2001 until roughly 2006, when I bought a Canon 5D. At that time the difference between aps-c and full frame was significant in terms of quality and ISO range. The original Canon 5D had. extremely good quality across a wide range of ISO values. Today's full frame cameras offer extreme image quality, and a APS-C cameras typically offer pretty good performance in terms of image quality, but still are a slight bit below full frame in terms of total image quality. However, I think that toda's better crop cameras offer ample image quality. Image quality really comes down to lens and post processing capability and technique of the photographer... yeah you read that right, the photographer and his or her abilities and working methods still play a part in the image quality. In terms of wide-angle use, the full frame has a slight advantage today,I think.

there is no denying the absolute image quality advantage of certain high megapixel sensors such as Sony's new 47 megapixel sensor… There is no crop sensor that can give such a beautiful image quality, especially at elevated ISO settings. I am currently in awe of what Sony's highest resolution full frame sensors are showing me on a daily basis at various sites around the web. currently manufacturers are working on super rapidfire crop sensor cameras, such as the Nikon D 500. Canon's new 90Dhas been announced and it is a 10 frame per second rapidfire wonder… A few years ago that kind of firing rate was about $7999...Here we are in 2019 and within days you'll be able to buy a 90D for roughly $1200!

 

[Dao]

I have a FF, a crop and 1 inch super zoom. If the light condition is not going to be ideal and I am planning to raise the ISO, the FF camera to have it's advantage. When light is not an issue then the crop or even the 1 inch sensor camera is not bad at all and most of the time, you can tell the difference.

I bet when technology get to a point that even ISO 6400 on a 1 inch (or smaller) sensor is very clean, I may not need the FF that much. Of course, shallow DoF is one advantage with the FF, but look at all those f/1.8 zoom lens Sigma made for the crop sensor camera. On top of that, with a decent telephoto fast lens, the crop or even the 1 inch sensor camera can produce beautiful shallow DoF images.

As of right now, I kind of think (my personal opinion) FF camera is more of less a status symbol for some people (not all of course) especially for hobby shooters.

 

[Ysarex]

I bet when technology get to a point that even ISO 6400 on a 1 inch (or smaller) sensor is very clean, I may not need the FF that much.

Works for me now -- 1 inch sensor ISO 6400: Dropbox - ISO_6400_inch.jpg - Simplify your life Look at it at 50% res.

Joe

 

[chuasam]

Nikon D850 for my portrait and fun shoots because I love the lens range and dynamic range.
Canon 5D Mk III for my architecture and real estate shot because that's what the company issued me.
Olympus EM10 III for my travel photography because it is light and convenient.

Why do you need to choose one?

 

[ac12]

I shoot various formats
In digital it is BOTH micro 4/3 mirrorless and APS-C dSLR. I almost got a FF camera, but went the other way to m4/3.
Which camera gets selected to use depends on the requirements of the shoot.
There are times when I will take my Nikon D7200 DX/APS-C, and other times when I will take one of my Olympus m4/3 cameras. Examples:

• For FAST sports, none of my Olympus cameras matches the Nikon D7200 for viewfinder performance.
• For challenging lighting, the EVF of the Olympus trumps the OVF of the Nikon. I can adjust exposure setting and see the result real time on the EVF, vs. shoot, chimp, adjust, repeat on the dSLR.
  • Same for all/most of the other mirrorless cameras, regardless of sensor format.
• For shooting at a concert, the electronic shutter of the Olympus is SILENT.
  • Same for all/most of the other mirrorless cameras, regardless of sensor format.
• For small size/weight for travel, the m4/3 kit is significantly smaller and 45% lighter than my dSLR kit.

As for resolution, the new APS-C Canon 90D has a 32MP sensor. That size sensor used to be only available in FF cameras.

The place that FF beats APS-C is native lenses. Both Nikon and Canon treat the APS-C camera line as beginner/amateur/consumer cameras, and there are few GOOD native APS-C lenses. If you want a GOOD lens for your APS-C camera, you have to get a FF lens.
However, there are other brands such as Fuji, that ONLY have APS-C. Because they only have APS-C, they do not treat APS-C as a poor cousin to the FF cameras as Nikon and Canon do.

 

[Dacaur]

As to the lenses thing, you are thinking about it backwards. It's not that they DON'T make top of the line lenses for aps-c cameras. They do. Those lenses just happen to be the same ones they make for FF cameras...
No one is treating crop bodies like red headed step children.
I, and obviously the mfgs agree, see no point in duplicating FF lenses for aps-c. Canon (and Nikon) has its top of the line lenses with a mount which works on both full frame and aps-c. You don't lose anything by using a FF lense on a crop body.
Imo, I would make zero sense for them to make a top of the line lense that ONLY fits a crop body. The top reason people buy crop bodies is because they are affordable. Top of the line glass is not affordable, So they make affordable lenses specially for aps-c. If you don't want an "affordable" lense, buy a FF lense.
Not to say crop lenses are crap. There are definitely crop sensor lenses that will beat the pants off some FF lenses.

 

[ac12]

True to a point.
The point is the crop factor effect.

Yes, both Nikon and Canon have good APS-C short standard lenses in the 17-55 range, approx equal to the 24-70 on a FF camera.

But the next step is missing. There is NO APS-C camera equivalent to the classic FF 70-200/2.8.
On an APS-C camera it would be a 45-135.
The closest ones are
- the discontinued Sigma 50-150/2.8
- the new Tamron 35-150/2.8-4 full frame lens.
I shoot a 70-200 on my APS-C camera, and the 70mm short end is too long on an APS-C camera. That is like a 105mm on a FF camera. My options at the time were either the full frame 24-120/4 or 70-200.

35mm is the "normal" lens for an APS-C camera. Here I was looking at "affordable."
But only Nikon makes a 35mm APS-C DX lens.
Canon does NOT make a 35mm APS-C EF-S lens. You have to buy the significantly more expensive full frame EF lens, rather than a less expensive APS-C EF-S lens. Or get the Yongnuo 35/2 EF-S lens.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

A lot of wisdom in the above comments.

Still, it all comes down to, yes bigger is better but do you need a Mercedes when a Chevy will do the job just fine.

It can be a tough call.

 

[Derrel]

I think the Mercedes versus Ford or Chevy analogy is flawed.

Nikon and Canon both treat APS-C as second tier. Sure, you can use full frame lenses on the APS-C cameras,
but if one were to contrast Nikon and Canon with Fuji, one would see that Fuji has really paid attention to its lens lineup for the smaller sensor size, but "the big two" have refused to make a full line of high-grade lenses specifically for their entry-and mid-point cameras, and for some years now the big two manufacturers have been very slow to update their offerings at the top of the crop frame classparentheses Nikon took and eternity to update the D 300 to the 510 and took literally almost half a decade between the 7 D and the 7 D Mark two. (Nikon went many years between the D300 and the D500,and Canon was extremely slow to update the 7D to its 7D Mark II version.)Both Nikon and Canon are treating the smaller-sensor market somewhat differently than they treat the full frame market. I do however like the looks of the affordable compact pancake prime lenses that Canon has released in the last half decade.

 

[petrochemist]

I think the Mercedes versus Ford or Chevy analogy is flawed.

Definitely given the variety of vehicle types Mercedes make. I regularly see: Coaches, Lorries ('18 wheelers', 7½ tonners), off road 4x4s (both the Unimog & smaller jeep equivalents) as well as compacts, sports cars & limos...

Ford & Chevy ranges over here at least are much more limited, (though Fords are still more common).

 

[beagle100]

I think the Mercedes versus Ford or Chevy analogy is flawed.

Definitely given the variety of vehicle types Mercedes make. I regularly see: Coaches, Lorries ('18 wheelers', 7½ tonners), off road 4x4s (both the Unimog & smaller jeep equivalents) as well as compacts, sports cars & limos...

Ford & Chevy ranges over here at least are much more limited, (though Fords are still more common).

and there is still plain old Honda and Toyota
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[Derrel]

Toyota,Honda,Mercedes. All are equal right, beagle? A Kia is the same thing as a Mercedes too, right beagle? A Hyundai and a Rolls-Royce are equivalents, right? I mean both are cars, right?

Come on, let's get real… Cameras are different, just as a Kia and a Rolls-Royce are not the same thing once one gets by their generic class. Both are cars, both use four tires, and both have a steering wheel, and engine, but there are many differences between them.

A Rolex and a Timex both end in "ex"....but are they the same thing? In one sense yes, and many other senses, no. Is a fine 1930s Parker side-by-side shotgun the same thing as a cheap Savage double-barreled shotgun? Is a gun or camera that's priced at $5,000 the same thing as a $699 beginner-level item that does much the same thing?

 

[Derrel]

The original post positions full frame as an upgrade to a smaller sensor camera. I do not think that is necessarily correct. For example is the Nikon D610 really an upgrade to the smaller sensor D500?

How about the Nikon D610 compared with the newly-annonounced Olympus sports and action camera which uses a much smaller sensor, but is designed for professional use? In this case we are comparing a full frame Nikon designed (mostly) for serious amateur use with a micro 4/3 sensor camera that costs roughly three times as much. Yes, the Nikon is a full frame camera, but the Olympus is built to a much more robust standard, and has many features that the Nikon D610 lacks.

I will say it one more time: we should not compare the two formats, but rather compare camera model versus specific camera model.